What you're asking for is impossible. You're talking about an experiment on a global scale where you add in a measured amount of greenhouse gases and carefully measure the resulting temperature change. Then you'd have to repeat it multiple times to get anyone to believe it. That's just not going to happen so all we have to go one are ongoing measurements and observations that we're already using.
I am talking about observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical substance (CO2) is causing drastic changes to an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity..the atmosphere. You claimed that there was science at work here...not faith.
Saying that the reason the climate is changing is obvious...and that it is changing due to CO2 is like a very religious person saying that it is obvious that God created the universe. To them it is obvious, but when you start asking for some actual evidence, you find that it just doesn't exist and what they have is faith. You warmers claim that our CO2 is altering the global climate, but when I ask for actual evidence of that claim, then it turns out that you have faith in the claim that CO2 is causing the global climate to change and don't actually have any evidence.
So yeah, dummies like you will always have your little excuse and claim there's no link between human activity and global warming even though amazingly, CO2 concentrations and average earth temperature clearly established new trendlines not seen in the previous 600000 years about the same time man began burning lots of coal.
Upon what do you base your claim that the present climate is something that has not happened in 600,00 years? There are no proxy studies that have anything like the sort of resolution necessary for you to make any such claim....we have ice core data, which is the gold standard in so far as proxy studies go and that data tells an entirely different story than you are telling. For example, here is just the past 10,000 years in the northern hemisphere taken from the Greenland ice core data...
Clearly, the average temperature in the northern hemisphere has been considerably higher than at the present...not 600,000 years ago, but for most of the past 10,000 years. And the same temperature fingerprints evident in the Greenland ice core data are also visible in the Vostok ice core data from Antarctica....and when the earth started falling into the ice age that it is currently still climbing out of, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm..and has been in excess of 1000ppm for most of the history of the earth.
When you look at the temperature reconstructions showing the last 600,000 years, I am more worried that the warming cycle has just about peaked out and that a cooling trend is on the way...we are certainly cooler than 3 of the past 4 interglacial periods by a pretty wide margin. Prolonged cold is far more frightening than prolonged warmth.
I think if you study the science of it, you'll come to the same conclusion.
I have...for decades now, which is why I was supremely confident that you could not provide even the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions. If you are telling me that science is unable to gather observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entities like the atmosphere and CO2, and show actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence, (and I am just asking for evidence...not proof...just some actual evidence) then the science you think is happening...isn't.
The problem really comes in when the politicians got involved.
True that...had politics never become involved, there would have been no motivation to demonize a trace gas in the atmosphere in an attempt to use it as a club to beat capitalism into submission...AGW would never have existed..and certainly never existed as mainstream "science" without serious political support....in real science, when a hypothesis fails a prediction, it is scrapped....just one predictive failure falsifies an actual scientific hypothesis...the AGW hypothesis has failed every predictive test and is kept viable by politics and money...and nothing else.
We've now suffered through 8 years of the worst US regime in history who's policy has been to punish American businesses immediately, while agreeing to the worst polluter in the world, China, continuing to increase it's pollution until 2030 at which time if they feel like it they might begin to do something about their emissions.
Pollution is an entirely different topic and one that I feel very strongly about...I support draconian fines...fines that would bankrupt polluters....and minimum prison sentences of decades for polluters...penalties so terrible that only an idiot would try to get away with skirting the laws because no amount of money would be worth it...Pollution is an actual problem with actual solutions...CO2, however, is not, and never will be a pollutant and so long as the AGW scam is sucking all of the air out of the room by claiming that everything is the result of CO2 emissions, and sucking all the treasure out of the coffers, the real problems will never be addressed.
Then on the other side you've got your various idiot GOP politicians and pundits that claim global warming is all a big hoax just because they don't want to be on the same side of an issue as Obama.
You can't find a single shred...not one small bit....not a single bit of data that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....none exists....and you think us skeptics are skeptical of the claim because of politics?...Only a political wanker would not be skeptical....Name one other scientific field that you believe could convince as many people as are apparently convinced of imminent disaster without the first bit of actual evidence supporting the claims?
And I was skeptical of manmade global warming back when it was global cooling in the 1970's...anyone who has taken a real look at the earth's climate history can not take the present hysterical handwaving over climate seriously...
So yeah, once the politicians got ahold of it, it's pretty hard to take it seriously.
Politics got hold of smoking and that was taken damned seriously...politics got hold of pollution way back when, and that was taken damned seriously...politics has taken hold of numerous scientific topics that have been taken very seriously...the difference is that those which were taken seriously were accompanied by plenty of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supported the scientific claims. There is none in support of the claims being made by climate pseudoscience.
